×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

(OP)
I have a building that I am currently designing that is 3 story 40’-0” high (37’-6” high with a 2’-6” parapet) that has a brick façade. Openings in the brick (for windows and doors) are limited to 8’-0” in width (ie no “strip windows). The building is being constructed following the IBC2009 requirements. In accordance with the masonry code (ACI 530), we are planning on supporting the brick at the third floor elevation of 26’-0” +/- (this keeps it under the 30’ requirement).

ACI 530 also requires the weight of the veneer to be supported at each story above this 26’-0” height. In this instance would the weight of the brick need to be supported at the roof? In accordance with the code this appears to be true, but we are only supporting 3’-4’ of veneer max and it just seems like a waste.

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

I don't think it's necessary. Technically, I believe that you can reset the 30' dimension every time that you provide new support.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

(OP)
KootK,

That is not how the section reads:

If anchored veneer with a backing of cold-formed steel framing exceeds the height above the noncombustible foundation given in table 6.2.2.3.1 (which says 30'), the weight of the veneer shall be supported by noncombustible construction for each story above the height limit given in table 6.2.2.3.1

Seems pretty specific, but we are talking about 16' of supported veneer on the third floor steel framing. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Out of the gate I have been told that this project has budget problems. I told the client to limit the height of the brick to 30' and use a different cladding material above and so far they have refused.

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

Hey, if it all read straight forward, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think that they are simply assuming that, above the initial 30', support would be at every floor. That's usually how it's done for multi story buildings for a number of reasons.

Another issue is whether or not a parapet constitures a storey. I would argue that it does not.

There seems to be a fire protection angle to this that I do not fully understand. Do you understand it? Perhaps, with the fire protection intent in hand, the answer would be easier to parse out.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

Here is the wording in the 2014 version, and of course, there is no commentary.

12.2.2.3.1.3 - If anchored veneer with a backing of cold-formed steel framing exceeds 30 feet, or 38 feet at a gable, in height above the location where veneer is supported, the weight of veneer shall be supported by noncombustible construction at each story above 30 feet in height.

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

Perhaps at height, we want smaller sections of brick potentially toppling down in a fire. Even at that, I find the separation for a 30" parapet a bit silly seeming.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

(OP)
KootK,

I am just trying to make sure I am doing this right and I definitely appreciate your opinion. My impression is that the height limit is based more upon expansion/contraction of the veneer and the joints used to accommodate this movement of the brick and not a fire issue. The commentary in ACI 530 references "industry practice" and the model building code for this limit.

I did a search online and oddly enough I found a reference that shows how/where to support the brick. It also does not show a support at the roof which is pretty much the question I am asking.

http://www.masonrysystems.org/knowledge/basics/ven...

RE: ACI 530 6.2.2.3.1.3

No sweat, I wasn't put out at all. Is there not also an exemption for rational analysis someplace?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources